Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:22:31.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ignorance, Environmental Education Research and Design Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Deirdre Barron ,
Simon Jackson  and
Lyndon Anderson
Deirdre Barron*
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology
Simon Jackson
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology
Lyndon Anderson
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology
*
†Research and Research Studies Coordinator, Faculty of Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Prahran Campus, 144 High Street, Prahran, Victoria 3181, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the relatively new discipline of design education we have the opportunity to frame the way that design education is formulated. The relative lack of theorists in the field of design education studies leaves unquestioned the relevance of conventional practices of design education that are premised on only tangentially relevant Art, Science and Information Technology models. There is a gap in design education development regarding how to mediate ecological concerns with techno-scientific imperatives. Environmental education researchers can influence this new field by challenging existing approaches to design education with particular attention to the ways design either contributes to or hinders the development of a sustainable society. In order to enter this discussion with environmental education researchers we identify three ecological issues faced by designers and design educators, here we pay particular attention to Industrial Design. The question for this paper is, can environmental education researchers offer advice to the design education area that may help us develop ecologically sustainable design-based programs. The newness of ecological concerns in the design research and design education areas means that we have a great deal to learn. If environmental education researchers are able to assist us with our reflections on designing curricula that in turn encourages a more ecologically aware design profession then this would be a worthwhile contribution to design practice in Australia, and indeed the world.

Keywords

design educationgreen-designeco-designsustainability
Type
Research Article
Information
Australian Journal of Environmental Education , Volume 21 , 2005 , pp. 39 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

References

Anderson, L., & Jackson, S. (2005, 08 15–18, 2005). Teaching design and engineering: A review of product design engineering programs offered through the Faculty of Design, Swinburne University of Technology. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Barak, M., Eisenberg, E., & Harel, O. (1995). What's in a calculator?' An introductory project for technology studies. Research in Science and Technological Education,, 13(2), 147–154.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Harrison, G. (1994). Technological capability. In Banks, F. (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 13–19). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Curriculum Corporation. (1994). Technology: A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
Davies, D. (1996). Professional design and primary children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 6, 45–59.Google Scholar
Department of Environment and Heritage. (2005). Extending the vision: Australian Government engagement with the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005–2014. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from http://www.deh.gov.au/education/publications/vaee-05/index.html Google Scholar
DIA. (2005). Design guidelines. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from http://www.dia.org.au Google Scholar
Diamond, I., & Orenstein, G. F. (Eds.). (1990). Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
Escobar, A. (1999). After nature. Current Anthropology, 40(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Fleer, M., & Jane, B. (2004). Technology for children (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Educational Australia.Google Scholar
Fry, T. (1988). Design History Australia 1788–1970. North Ryde, NSW: Craftsman House.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. (1993). Contexts for the development of appropriate technology education curriculum. Pacific-Asian Education,, 5(2), 23–32.Google Scholar
Ginns, I. S., Norton, S. J., & Davis, R. S. (2005). Teacher change in response to student learning in technology. Paper presented at the Fifth International Primary Design and Technology Conference – Excellence through enjoyment, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Gough, N. (2002). Ignorance in environmental education research. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 19–26.Google Scholar
Guattari, F. (1995a). Chaosmosis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Guattari, F. (1995b). Chaosphy. New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harrison, M. (1994). Science and technology: Partnership or divorce? In Banks, F. (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 238–245). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
ICSID. (2005). Definition of Design. Retrieved from http://www.icsid.org/about/Definition_of_Design/ Google Scholar
Lewis, T. (1991). Introducing technology into school curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(2), 141–154.Google Scholar
Lewis, T., & Gagel, C. (1992). Technological literacy: A critical analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 117–138.Google Scholar
Norman, J. (2000). Design as a framework for innovative thinking and learning: How can design thinking reform learning? In Norman, E. W. L. & Roberts, P. H. (Eds.), Design and technology educational research and curriculum development: The emerging international research agenda (pp. 90–99). Loughborough: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
Paechter, C. (1992). Subject subcultures and the negotiating of open work. In McCormick, R., Murphy, P. & Harrison, M. E. (Eds.), Teaching and learning technology (pp. 279–288). London: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the Real World. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Raizen, S. A., Sellwood, P., Todd, R. D., & Vickers, M. (1995). Technology education in the classroom: Understanding the designed world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Ramirez, M. (2004). Ecological sustainability in Australian industrial design education. Paper presented at the FutureGround, Monash University, Australia. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/staff/Mariano.Ramirez/futureground.pdf Google Scholar
Rennie, L. J., Treagust, D. F., & Kinnear, A. (1992). An evaluation of curriculum materials for teaching technology as a design process. Research in Science and Technological Education,, 10(2), 203–217.Google Scholar
Rowell, P. M., Gustafson, B. J., & Guilbert, S. M. (1999). Characterization of technology within an elementary science program. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 37–55.Google Scholar
Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
Soper, K. (1996). Nature/nature. In Robertson, George et al. (Ed.), FutureNatural (pp. 22–34). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Whitfield, T. W. A. (2005). Aesthetics as pre-linguistic knowledge: A psychological perspective. Design Issues, 21(1), 3–17.Google Scholar